Foreign exchange forward contracts for hedging subsidiary loan held revenue nature, not capital, following Supreme Court precedent

ITAT Chennai held that foreign exchange forward contracts entered by assessee to hedge USD 60 million loan to subsidiary were revenue in nature, not capital, following SC precedent in Bangalore International Airport Limited requiring forex fluctuation gains/losses to be treated as revenue when not adjustable to capital account. Court dismissed assessee's appeal on this issue. However, ITAT restored matters regarding finance costs disallowance and notional gains on derecognition to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to non-submission of requested details by assessee. Section 14A addition was deleted as assessee earned no exempt income. Revenue's appeals on liquidated damages and closing stock were partially allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in the appeals for AY 2018-19 are:

(a) Whether there was a violation of principles of natural justice due to non-proper opportunity of hearing, specifically regarding communication sent to an email address of a former employee.

(b) Whether the addition of Rs. 19,90,79,300/- on account of foreign exchange forward contract gains was rightly treated as revenue receipt or should be treated as capital in nature and hence not taxable.

(c) Whether the disallowance of finance costs amounting to Rs. 80,85,51,659/- claimed under IND AS but disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified.

(d) Whether the addition of Rs. 38,04,30,000/- on account of notional gains on derecognition of financial liabilities was rightly made and confirmed.

(e) Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 225,21,81,428/- made by AO under section 14A was correct.

(f) Whether the addition of Rs. 42 Crores on account of liquidated damages was rightly remitted back for limited verification.

(g) Whether the addition on account of closing stock of Rs. 362,47,21,715/- was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

(h) The procedural issue concerning the non-submission of remand reports by the AO to the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and its impact on appellate functioning.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that a party be given proper opportunity to be heard. Communication must be effectively delivered to the assessee.

Analysis: The appellant contended that notices were sent to an email ID of a former employee, thus violating natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue is only bound to send notices to the email IDs provided by the assessee. Since the assessee voluntarily furnished the email ID of an employee who had exited the company, no fault lies with the Revenue. Further, the assessee had filed submissions through the ITBA portal, indicating awareness and engagement with the process. The Tribunal rejected the contention of violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: No violation of principles of natural justice occurred; the ground is dismissed.

(b) Treatment of Foreign Exchange Forward Contract Gains (Rs. 19,90,79,300/-)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 43A and 43AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS VI), and judicial precedents including Sutlej Cotton Co. Ltd. (116 ITR 1), Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd. (60 ITR 405), Garden Silk Mills (320 ITR 720), and PCIT v. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. (2023).

Facts: The appellant entered into a foreign currency forward contract (FEFC) on 29 March 2017 to hedge the risk on repayment of a USD 60 million loan given to its foreign subsidiary (IL&FS Maritime Offshore Pte Ltd). The appellant treated the forex gain from this contract as capital in nature, excluding it from taxable income.

Court's reasoning: The AO and CIT(A) found that the FEFC was an independent contract between the appellant and a third-party speculator (PNB), unrelated directly to the loan transaction with the subsidiary. The appellant failed to provide detailed explanations or supporting documents despite multiple opportunities and queries.

The CIT(A) extensively analyzed the mechanics of FEFC, demonstrating that the gain arose from the contract with the speculator, not the loan transaction. The appellant admitted there were no specific terms in the loan agreement regarding exchange risk allocation, implying that the loan and the forward contract are separate transactions. The appellant also inconsistently treated incidental expenses on the FEFC as revenue expenses while treating gains as capital, which the Tribunal found contradictory.

Precedents were examined and distinguished. The Sutlej Cotton case involved foreign currency held directly on capital or revenue account, without FEFCs. Tata Locomotive involved no FEFC. Garden Silk Mills involved FEFC related to capital asset import, but the appellant's loan was not repaid, and the gain was real and earned from a third party.

Section 43AA mandates that gains or losses from foreign exchange fluctuations, including forward contracts, be treated as income or loss and computed per ICDS VI. The Supreme Court in Bangalore International Airport Ltd. held that foreign exchange fluctuations related to capital assets should be adjusted to the cost of the asset; if not, they are to be treated as revenue.

Application: Since the FEFC gains were not adjusted to any capital asset cost and the loan was not repaid, the gain is revenue in nature and taxable. The appellant's failure to provide full details and contradictory accounting treatment weakened its case.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the addition as revenue receipt and dismissed the appellant's ground.

(c) Disallowance of Finance Costs (Rs. 80,85,51,659/-)

Facts: The appellant claimed interest expense computed as per ICDS-IX amounting to Rs. 1,051,86,98,488 and disallowed interest of Rs. 971,01,46,829 as per IND AS. The AO further disallowed Rs. 80,85,51,659 as inadmissible. The appellant argued that under IND AS 109, financial liabilities are carried at amortized cost using the effective interest rate method, and the disallowance was incorrect.

Court's reasoning: The CIT(A) noted deficient compliance by the appellant, which hindered adjudication. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue fully due to incomplete facts and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the appellant an opportunity to comply.

Conclusion: The issue is restored for fresh adjudication; grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

(d) Addition on Notional Gains on Derecognition of Financial Liabilities (Rs. 38,04,30,000/-)

Facts: The appellant had deferred payment of retention money under a contract, resulting in derecognition of original liability and recognition of revised liability at fair value under IND AS 109. The difference was credited to P&L as notional gain. The appellant contended this gain was notional and not taxable.

Court's reasoning: The appellant failed to submit detailed explanations and supporting documents despite repeated requests. The CIT(A) held that extinguishment of liability constitutes a benefit under section 28(iv) and is taxable. The Tribunal noted the appellant's failure to bring full facts on record and restored the issue to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with due opportunity.

Conclusion: Grounds allowed for statistical purposes; issue remanded for de novo adjudication.

(e) Deletion of Addition under Section 14A (Rs. 225,21,81,428/-)

Relevant legal framework: Section 14A disallows expenses incurred to earn exempt income. Rule 8D prescribes the method of computing such disallowance.

Facts: The AO made addition under section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted it on the ground that the appellant did not earn any exempt income during the year.

Precedents: The Tribunal relied on its own decisions for AY 2012-13 to 2014-15 and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in Chettinad Logistics, upheld by the Supreme Court, which held that if no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under section 14A is warranted.

Court's reasoning: The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts and confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

Conclusion: Revenue's appeal dismissed; deletion under section 14A upheld.

(f) Addition on Liquidated Damages (Rs. 42 Crores)

Facts: The AO made addition due to non-submission of detailed explanation. The appellant claimed liquidated damages were offered as income but claimed against asset cost. CIT(A) remitted the matter for limited verification.

Court's reasoning: The Tribunal found no fault with CIT(A)'s approach and confirmed the order remitting the matter for verification.

Conclusion: Grounds of appeal dismissed; remand upheld.

(g) Addition on Closing Stock (Rs. 362,47,21,715/-)

Facts: The AO made addition due to non-submission of explanation. The appellant argued closing stock was shown net of material consumed as per ITR figures. CIT(A) deleted the addition relying on appellant's explanation but noted some contradictory findings and deficient compliance.

Court's reasoning: The Tribunal observed insufficient material on record to accord relief and directed the AO to conduct limited verification with due opportunity to the appellant.

Conclusion: Grounds allowed for statistical purposes; matter remanded to AO for verification.

(h) Procedural Issue of Non-submission of Remand Reports by AO

Court's observations: The CIT(A) repeatedly requested remand reports from AO and supervisory authorities without success. The Tribunal expressed serious concern over the increasing trend of non-submission, which hampers appellate functioning and justice delivery. The AO has dual roles as Revenue representative and officer of the court, and non-compliance affects Revenue's interests and image.

The Tribunal recommended departmental introspection, identification, and action against delinquent officers to create deterrence and restore departmental efficiency and credibility. The DR was directed to convey these views to the CBDT Chairman for urgent intervention.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The argument per se is flawed because revenue is only bound to send notices to taxpayers on details provided by it. In the instant case, the assessee has voluntarily chosen to give email Id of its employee and therefore no blame can be attached on revenue for sending its communication to the said email Id."

"The FEFC transaction between the appellant (IL & FSTNPCL) and the speculator (PNB) is an independent transaction between these two entities only with no impact on IMOL."

"The gain earned and received on FEFC is taxable as revenue as per I-T Act."

"If the gain on FEFC on the strength of loan given to foreign subsidiary was to be treated as capital, then the loss on FEFC too on the strength of loan given to foreign subsidiary should be treated as capital."

"Section 43AA mandates that any gain or loss arising on account of foreign exchange fluctuations, including forward exchange contracts, shall be treated as income or loss and computed as per ICDS VI."

"Where such adjustment of fluctuation gain or loss cannot be made on capital account as in this case of the appellant assessee, then the fluctuation gain or loss should be treated as revenue and to be offered to tax."

"The benefit received by the appellant through derecognition of liability due to extinguishment of liability is a benefit u/s. 28(iv) of I-T Act and should be taxed accordingly."

"If the appellant did not earn any exempt income like dividends, section 14A cannot be invoked."

"Repeated non-submission of remand reports by AO hampers the appellate process and calls for departmental introspection and action."

The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange gain arising from forward contracts entered into by the appellant to hedge foreign currency loan repayment risk is revenue in nature and taxable under the Income Tax Act. The appellant's failure to provide full details and contradictory accounting treatment was a critical factor. The Tribunal also emphasized compliance with procedural requirements, including timely submission of remand reports, to ensure fair and efficient appellate functioning.

---